Strategies to reintroduce prescribed fire as a grassland management process on the Canadian prairies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Prescribed fire is a land management practice utilized in fire‐adapted ecosystems to reduce wildfire risks, control invasive, exotic and woody plant species, enhance productivity and biodiversity, and share knowledge of land and culture. Fire exclusion has been the dominant management regime in western Canada since colonization. Efforts to reintroduce prescribed fire often face complex obstacles. The purpose of this research was to evaluate and compare organizational strategies for restoring fire as a land management process in grasslands of Saskatchewan. Agency practitioners with a range of experience in prescribed fire attended a workshop including presentations on agency practices and burn plan reviews. Workshop discussion was recorded, and themes were categorized and summarized. Common themes stressed the importance of access to education and training, information sharing and public engagement. Agencies were limited by institutional and jurisdictional barriers, liability concerns, weather and site complexities and had developed divergent strategies in response. Established programs with trained personnel and investment of significant funds accomplished the largest and most complex areas burned. In contrast, programmes with limited funding used a low‐cost collaborative approach and completed frequent small burns. Solution. In response to the limitations to prescribed fire identified in the workshops, the Canadian Prairies Prescribed Fire Exchange was formed in 2021 to support interagency cooperation. The success of this organization between 2021 and 2024 emphasizes the importance of collaboration to overcome barriers, build successful programmes and accomplish shared conservation goals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".